The Great Partisan Shift | Robert F. Kennedy Jr. | EP 484

I don't think she has the ability to talk to foreign leaders. Um, I haven't seen any evidence of that, and I think that she is susceptible to manipulation because she doesn't have firm ideas about her own. I fear that she'll be manipulated by them and that those entities actually want a nuclear war this time in history. If we get a president like that, um, it will, uh, for the next four years, it may be too late for our country to ever recover.

[Music]

Hello everybody! So today I had the privilege of round two with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The first time we had a discussion, which I enjoyed a lot and thought was very worthwhile, the powers that be at YouTube decided that it was okay for them to eradicate it, which was not something that I was happy with and still remain unhappy about. We'll see if the same thing happens this time.

So we covered a lot; has changed since that first interview. Most markedly, that RFK is now allied with Donald Trump, and that's quite the strange turn of affairs. We have a cod of disaffected Democrats running on the Republican side against Kamala Harris. And what did we talk about? Well, we talked a lot about why RFK has become disenchanted with the Democrats.

I had pushed him on that issue in our first discussion, asking him, for example, when the left goes too far. We finally have the answer to that question; that's in this podcast, because RFK outlined five different ways the left has gone too far.

So, highlighting, um, highlighting what? Highlighting their lack of care for free speech, highlighting the fact that they're now the party of war, highlighting the fact that they're no longer the party of the working class. Well, there's three ways that the left has gone too far, and that's just what is. That's the tip of the iceberg.

We talked a fair bit about, well, the policy issues that Kennedy has been discussing with Trump, concentrating particularly on the health crisis, on free speech, and on international peace. Those do strike me as three major issues that we need to contend with.

Um, we talked about the development of Trump's new team, which is a remarkable occurrence. The fact that he has Musk, the fact that he has Ramaswamy, Tulsi Gabbard, and, of course, Kennedy himself; that changes the political landscape dramatically, something the Trump team hasn't yet capitalized on.

We talked a little bit about what the union might look like under a Trump administration with all these remarkable people in it. So join us for all of that! YouTube censors, uh, allowing so.

I'm very curious about the alliance that you formed with Trump. I'm curious about whether you ever imagined that such a thing was a likelihood, and then I'm curious about why you decided it was a good idea.

Uh, yeah, I never imagined such a thing was likely. In fact, I was reading a statement that I had forgotten I made, but I made it repeatedly, um, uh, in the 18 months during the 18 months when I was running. After my after declaring that I was going to run, when people oftentimes would ask me why don't you run with Trump, and I would say, uh...

On several occasions, I was approached by the Trump campaign about running as his VP, and, um, my answer to that was always that, uh, that would result in a divorce with my wife if I even had the inclination to do that because it's something that just constitutionally she, uh, at that point could not have handled and would have, I think, impacted her job and her friendships, her relationships, her family, etc.

But, a lot, you know, we both learned a lot during the election. We saw, I saw this metamorphosis of the Democratic Party. The party that I was born in or raised in - my family has been involved in the Democratic Party since my all of my great-grandparents came over on the, uh, in 1848, uh, during the potato famine, and landed in Boston.

It was the Democratic Party that they came in. They came over penniless and friendless, and it was the Democratic Party that provided for them, that made sure that they got food, that they got jobs, um, that protected them against the reigning hierarchy of power in Boston at that time, which was, you know, run by what they call the Brahmin class, which was very hostile to Irish Catholics in particular.

And my great-grandfather was the first Irish Catholic mayor, and the first, let me put it this way, Irish Catholic ghetto mayor. There was one mayor before him that was Irish Catholic, but he was chosen by the Brahmin, and he was the first one who was, you know, part of the rebellion of the Irish, um, and the ultimate takeover of Boston and many of our other urban areas by Irish Catholic politicians.

My grandfather, John Fitzgerald, who was called Honey Fitz because he had a beautiful singing voice that sounded like honey, and his contemporary Patrick Joseph Kennedy, was a state legislature political boss in Boston. Their children married; my, uh, Rose Fitzgerald married my grandfather Joseph Kennedy. He was the treasurer from Franklin Roosevelt’s campaign.

He was the only Wall Street figure who supported Roosevelt, and then he became the first commissioner of the SEC. He had political ambitions of his own, but he ruined those, um, ambitions by his anti-war position both in World War I and then World War II. He served as the, uh, as the US ambassador to the court of St. James under Roosevelt to Great Britain, um, and then his children, his son Joe, who was killed during the war, gave a speech. You know, he would have run for... my grandfather had ambitions for him to be the first Irish Catholic President.

He gave a keynote address at the Democratic Convention in 1940. My uncle John Kennedy became the first Irish Catholic President of the United States. Um, my father served as attorney general and then the United States Senate, and then I died—I was assassinated—in his own run for president. My uncle Ted Kennedy was the second longest-serving member of the United States Senate.

And so, you know, my family, the DNA of the Democratic Party was baked into my own character, my identity. I grew up in the party; I began campaigning when I was, uh, six years old on my uncle's campaign. I attended the convention in Los Angeles that year, and I've attended almost every Democratic Convention since then, working in probably a hundred campaigns.

And, um, and I was a stalwart in the Democratic Party. But the Democratic Party that I grew up with changed dramatically—has changed. The last year, the Democratic Party I grew up in was the party of peace. My uncle, John Kennedy, he was asked by his best friend, one of his two best friends, Ben Bradley, who was then the editor of the Washington Post, "What do you want on your gravestone?"

And without skipping a beat, my uncle said, "He kept the peace." He said the primary job of a president of the United States was to keep the country out of war. He said he didn't want children in Africa and Latin America, when they heard about the United States, to think about a man in a military uniform with a gun. He wanted them to think of a Peace Corps volunteer. He wanted them to think of the Kennedy milk program, which provided nutrition to millions of malnourished kids around the world.

He wanted them to think of USAID, of the Alliance for Progress, and these other programs that my uncle created projected economic power rather than military power abroad. My uncle was under tremendous pressure to go to war in Laos, which he resisted in 1961, uh, to go to war in Germany during the Checkpoint Charlie crisis in '62, to go to war against Cuba in '61 during the Bay of Pigs, and then again in '63 during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and then to go to Vietnam.

All of his advisers were telling him he had to send 250,000 troops to Vietnam or the government would collapse, and he said, "It's their government. We cannot fight their war for them." He ultimately, under great pressure, sent 16,000 military advisers, and those who were not under his rules of engagement were allowed to participate in combat; some of them did.

In October of, um, of 1963, he learned that a Green Beret had been killed in Vietnam, and he turned to his aide, Walt Rosow, and he said, "I want the casualties; a list of complete casualties, US casualties." Rosow came back to him an hour later, and there were 75, 76 Americans that died at that point. My uncle said, "It's too many," and that afternoon, this October 22nd, 1963, he signed National Security Order 263, ordering all military personnel, US military personnel, out of Vietnam by 1965, with the first thousand coming home by December.

So, that would have been six weeks later. And then he was killed 30 days to the date after he signed that order, and a week after that, President Johnson, his successor, rescinded National Security Order 263. Johnson then sent 265,000 Americans to Vietnam; it became our war. My father ran against that war in 1968, and he also was killed in that process, and then Nixon took over and sent 560,000 Americans to Vietnam. We killed a million of them, maybe two million; they killed 56,000 of our children, including my cousin George Skel, who died in the Tet Offensive.

And then America went down a different path. So, you know, becoming a feature of the military-industrial complex, which I have warned against—three days before my uncle, on my birthday, in 1961, three days before my uncle took the office, I have made that warning.

My uncle spent three or thousand days of his presidency keeping us out of war and keeping the military-industrial complex at bay. This was one of the defining features of the Democratic Party; we were the party that was against war. The Republicans were the pro-war party. We were the party that was for civil rights, including constitutional rights and particularly freedom of speech, which is the backstop for all the other rights. The United States Constitution—a country that has the capacity to censor its critics and has the license for every kind of atrocity.

My father understood that, and he understood that that was one of the, that was a bedrock assumption of the Democratic Party—that free speech was, if any, any constrictions on free speech was the first step down the slippery slope of totalitarianism.

So is it fair to say then that you found the Democrats at the present time? You've alluded to peace, and under Trump, now the party of war, now that they're about to get us into a...

[AUDIO INTERRUPTION]

[Music]

Depressed people are sad and frustrated and disappointed. They tend to feel all negative emotions simultaneously in a manner that's paralyzing. Depression is fundamentally a biochemical disorder. One of the things I tried to determine as a good behaviorist was whether the person who was suffering was suffering because they were ill in the strictly physiological sense or whether they were suffering from the cumulative micro and macro catastrophes of life.

The probability that tossing an anti-depressant into the mix is all of a sudden going to fix your life that are absolutely catastrophically out of order is zero. The more unstable your life is, the less serotonin your brain produces, and that makes you hypersensitive to negative emotion and suppresses positive emotion. You take the problem I’m suffering and then you think, "Well, why are you suffering?" It's exposure therapy, and then you can practice encountering the obstacles that are stopping you, and it'll make you braver, and it'll help you deal with your problems. Voluntary confrontation with the forces of darkness and chaos is the fundamental story of [Music] life.

Putin has said this week that if we send missiles into Russia that he will consider himself to be at war with NATO and the United States of America. And, you know, he's got more weapons than he's got. He's the biggest nuclear power in the world. He has 1,200 more nuclear warheads than we do, and they're better than ours, and his electronic warfare system is a generation ahead of ours. As they've shown in Ukraine, they can shoot down almost anything that we send against them.

And Kamala Harris, during the convention, made this extraordinarily belligerent speech that appears to have been written by the neocons. And, um, before she went on, a CIA director spoke immediately before, and they had military people speaking at that. This was inconceivable, you know, when I was growing up. And Kamala Harris, in recent days, has touted her endorsement by Dick Cheney. Dick Cheney was like Darth Vader if you were a Democrat in 2004.

Practically, uh, the qualification for you being a Democrat is to consider Dick Cheney a war criminal. Dick Cheney, and John Bolton, who she also touted her endorsement by, and 225 other neocons, came out and supported her that day. Dick Cheney and John Bolton were the people who gave us the Patriot Act. They're the ones who launched the surveillance state, the censorship state, the legalized spying by the CIA and propaganda by the CIA against the American people. Never happened before. It's in their history.

If they can't do that, um, and Dick Cheney—then they gave us the Iraq War, which was the greatest cataclysm of foreign policy cataclysm in American history. We destroyed Iraq, which was our bulwark against Iranian expansion. The October 7th invasion was a direct result of our destruction of Saddam Hussein. Iraq is now no longer a bulwark against Iran; it is now a proxy of Iran, thanks to our war, which is exactly the foreign policy outcome that we've been struggling to avoid for 30 years.

We killed more Iraqis than Saddam Hussein, by far. We turned Iraq into a warring cauldron of Sunni and Shia dissent. We created ISIS. We sent, with that, Iraq and the spillover war in Syria, we sent between two and four million immigrants into Europe and destabilized every nation in Europe for a generation. Emergence of totalitarianism in Europe that right now, you know, the abolition of free speech in Europe is a direct result of the Iraq War. Brexit is a direct result of the Iraq War. It was a cataclysm.

If you ask Dick Cheney, Dick Cheney who gave us torture for the first time in American history... We had this tradition in this country against torture. George Washington, even when the British were torturing Americans and murdering them on prison ships in Manhattan, you know, off Manhattan Island, Washington was asked about torturing a British prisoner who had critical information, military information. He said, "I'd rather lose the war than do that."

If we lower ourselves to that level, then what's the point? Abraham Lincoln was presented with the same dilemma during the Civil War and, um, and said, "No, we're not going to do that," and he wrote guidelines against torture for the US military that later became the basis for the Geneva Convention. That is our legacy to the world, the Geneva Convention: you don’t torture people.

And Dick Cheney introduced those extraordinary renditions, openly torturing people, bragging about it. If you asked Dick Cheney today if you disavow any of those policies, he would say, "No, I embrace them." The war in Iraq was a great thing; we got rid of Saddam Hussein. It's insanity, and he has not changed.

So why is he endorsing Kamala Harris? It's not because the neocons have changed; it's because the Democratic Party is now the party of the neocons. When I interviewed you last time, I asked you a question that I've asked almost, I think, every Democrat that I've spoken to or former Democrat, which was, "When does the left go too far?" And you answered that question; you said, "When they align with Dick Cheney, they've gone too far." That's where they are now, yeah.

Well, so this is, so how do you how do you explain? I'd like to know what happened. By the way, I could go on with that list of departures from the Democrats. Extraordinary inversion, and you know I studied American history in college, and you know one of the ways that we study American history is according to these four big realignments that happen among the parties during different parts of our history. And we're going through one of those realignments today with the Democratic—the, you know, the Democratic Party was the party of civil rights has now become the party of censorship, the party of surveillance.

Yeah, it was the party of, that was fighting against the subversion of American democracy by big corporations, by Wall Street, and, uh, and corporate Robert Barron’s and Titans. Today, the Democratic Party is the party of Wall Street, is the party of big pharma, big tech, big ag, big food, of the military-industrial complex.

When I was a kid, the Democratic Party was the party of the poor; the Republican Party was the wealthy party. That's where most of the wealth in this country, 70 or 80%, was in the Republican Party. We were the party of the firefighters, the cops, the union leaders.

And it’s very interesting that at the Republican Convention, you had for the first time in history Sean O'Brien, the president of Teamsters Union speaking to great applause. This was unheard of. I was on tour recently with JD Vance, and we spoke at the Firefighters Convention in Boston, and he was touting about the importance of the rep.

Today's Republican Party for collective bargaining, which was a criminal act in the past to the Republicans during the 2020 election. Jordan, roughly 50% of the people in this country voted for Trump, and roughly 50% voted for Biden. The 50% who voted for Trump own 30% of the wealth in this country; the 50% who voted for Biden own 70%.

So, the Republican Party is the party of the poor, the party of the working class, the working poor of unions, and the Democratic Party has become the party of billionaires. Donald Trump chased billionaires out of the Republican Party, and they’ve all gone off to chase the neocons out of the Republican Party.

And I would also argue the Republican Party is now the party of true environmentalists. The fixation that, you know, and this is the space that I came out of. I got into environmental work of working for commercial fishermen on the Hudson River and then Rivers all over the country protecting habitats, protecting water, clean air, protecting our children against toxins and endocrine disruptors.

There’s a chemical now, the second most used pesticide in this country, is atrazine. It's banned in Europe, banned all over the world, but we use it here. It's in 63% of our drinking water. There’s a famous African-American scientist named Tyler Hayes, who's at the University of Berkeley. He did a famous experiment that anybody can look up on the Internet, and he put 70 African water frogs in an aquarium. He put atrazine in the water of that aquarium that was less than EPA's level. So it’s less than the levels we have in 63% of our water supply.

Sixty of those frogs became sterile; they were all male frogs. Sixty became sterile; 10% of those frogs turned female, and they were able to produce fertile eggs. So it changed their sex. And, of course, normally, you know, when you see something like that in an animal model, the first thing you want to do is test it in a mammal model and then a human model. Those tests were never done, so we don't know what impact it's having on our children, if any, but I think those studies ought to be done.

With the current administration proposing significant tax hikes in almost a 40% top income tax rate, a 7% increase to the corporate tax, a capital gains tax on unrealized gains, and plans to add nearly $1 trillion to an existing $2 trillion deficit, many are considering tax-sheltered and inflation-sheltered options for their savings in this climate.

Birch Gold Group offers valuable assistance; they can help you convert an existing IRA or 401(k) into a gold IRA without any out-of-pocket expenses. Now listen closely; this is crucial information for our listeners. September marks the final month of an extraordinary offer. This is your last chance to acquire something truly special with qualifying purchase from Birch Gold Group. I'm talking about the limited edition, highly coveted, one-of-a-kind 24 Karat gold-plated truth bomb.

But you need to text Jordan to 989898 to claim your eligibility before September 30th. Don’t wait for the president's spending spree to tank the dollar even further; protect your financial future with gold. Text Jordan to the number 989898 to claim your eligibility and make your purchase before September 30th. That's Jordan to 989898 today.

I've been trying for 40 years to get Republicans in, you know, Fox News and elsewhere to pay attention to this threat of endocrine disruptors, and they ridiculed me, writing me, you know, and just ignored me. Dr. Carlson did an extraordinary documentary a year and a half ago on endocrine disruptors and basically said all the things I just said, and he was absolutely attacked by the left and by the mainstream environmental community on this.

And then, you know, the other big issue with the mainstream environmentalists is this fixation on carbon alone; that all the things that brought us into the environment, people become environmentalists not because they're scared of a line on a graph. And, you know, you're going to be dead after, you know, at this point in history if you don't behave.

We got involved because of love, because of love of the habitat, because of love of the environment, because of love of our purple mountains' majesties, our rivers, and streams. Understanding we’re not protecting nature for the sake of the fishes and the birds; we’re protecting it for our own sake because nature enriches us, and this has been forgotten by the environmental movement.

And they’ve simply become fixated on carbon alone, and that is the only issue. And, you know, I’m watching the outcome of that now on the coastal Atlantic coast of North America. If 21 offshore wind farms are being built, it’s privatized 5,000 square miles of land between the Gulf of Maine and North Carolina, and they're pounding into the sediment 2,200 enormous turbines.

Turbines are unspeakably large. The just the blades on those turbines are 1,000 feet long; they're bigger than the Eiffel Tower. They're all made in China. Know, and when they explode, which one did off in Nantucket a month ago, they put shards into the water so you can't swim without getting cut. You can’t go to the beaches in Nantucket because of the shards on.

They’re killing the whale; the nymphs of National Marine Fisheries have warned that the turbines are going to cause the collapse of the cod fishery because they're in the spawning grounds. No, the environmental movement doesn’t care. They built these and they are destroying the whale populations, and everybody knows it.

In two years, we've had, you know, on average, there was about four groundings a year; we've had 109 oil tests unexplained over the past two years. Long since 2016, we've been averaging 16 to 20 a year, and these are right whales; there are only 368 left in the world - only 70 fertile females. Makey humac whales and other whale species, and they’re being exterminated, and everybody is pretending it’s not the wind farms. But nobody's—there's no other explanation; there have been no other changes.

And the federal environmental agencies that regulate this also regulate oil production in the Gulf of Mexico. The rule is that if there's a single whale death within 50 miles of an operation, everything comes to a halt until it’s explained. They’ve waived that rule, and they’ve refused to investigate the deaths; they refused to do proper necropsies of the dead whales to keep us in the dark about what’s actually causing this.

But everybody knows what’s causing it — and the big environmental groups, the inside the big way groups, including my group that I’ll, which is NRDC but Sierra Club and Greenpeace—they’re all pretending it’s not happening. You have the small environmental groups on the coastline, the 17, you know, these little environmental groups that are going crazy, protesting and demanding investigations, but they have been excluded now from the process.

And then you're seeing the same, you know, all of these wind farms are all being built by foreign companies, right? The foreign—they—nobody would build a wind farm offshore; wind—I'm very much in favor of onshore wind. I’ve built onshore wind; my brother’s in that business. You know, onshore wind is very efficient and very, very effective, and we have the best onshore wind in the world here in the United States.

Onshore wind can provide wind power at about 11 cents a kilowatt-hour; offshore wind, 33 cents a kilowatt-hour. The average price of energy in this country is about 14 to 16 cents a kilowatt-hour; onshore wind is more than double that. I mean offshore wind. So no utility in the world would ever build one of these towers unless it wasn't, uh, funded billions of dollars in federal subsidies and tax breaks.

The foreign companies can’t, because they’re foreign; they cannot take advantage of us tax breaks. So they get the big financial houses from our country to finance them so they can take those tax breaks. So the big players are Black Rock, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Wells Fargo, all the big contributors to the Democratic Party, and they are—they’ve gotten the tax breaks from the Inflation Reduction Act, which was Joe Biden’s signature environmental accomplishment.

But it’s not actually protecting the environment; it’s all about subsidies, these giant boondoggles for huge players that are destroying the environment. The other big 779 billion dollars of subsidies are going to carbon capture, which is tearing up the Midwest farmland. This is an absolute giveaway to Big Oil companies, to Big Methane companies, to Big Ag to take the carbon from methane plants and then inject it into deep wells, oil wells in the Bakken shale and in Southern Illinois to bring out the last drops of oil.

So instead of reducing carbon, they’re actually increasing carbon in the environment. It’s just this extraordinary, and it’s $79 billion in subsidies to do something that is an absolute debacle, and there’s no other way to describe it. I’ll tell you one other thing: there’s one of the byproducts of carbon capture is sulfuric acid, which the Woods Hole Marine Institute now has a contract to dump two million metric tons of this material, which destroys any form of life.

It actually destroys your genes and destroys at the cellular level. They dump it into the ocean off Nantucket, and, you know, it’s part of this process, and they’re all going along with it because they’ve all been paid off, and it really is kind of sickening; it’s criminal. And, uh, it’s, you know, and that is somehow, as I said, there’s been this huge inversion where the Republicans are opposing that. Republicans are focused on protecting the environment, protecting habitat, protecting our children from these toxic chemicals, and the Democratic Party and the associated environmental groups have forgotten about that mission.

So, you pointed to this inversion; you described the failure on the Democrat side to continue standing for peace. You’re very skeptical about the environmental movement in relationship to Democrat policies. You talked about free speech. I'm curious how that inversion played out as well in your more personal experience while you were running for president.

Because the last time we talked, you were more or less embarking on your campaign, and so I presume that, and I know for a fact that you had all sorts of misadventures, let’s say, on the campaign route. So I’m curious what you encountered practically speaking in terms of impediments to your campaign, because you were trying to rehabilitate the Democrats, to pull them to the center, to put yourself forward as a credible candidate.

So I imagine, and maybe I'm wrong, that there were things that you experienced practically, well, because you've been in the realm of abstraction to some degree, that you experienced practically while you were on the campaign trail that also, what would you say made you much more cognizant of how the political process actually works, particularly on the Democrat side. So what was that like?

Well, yeah, and that is the ultimate irony that the other part of the inversion is the Democratic Party has now come out essentially against democracy. Um, and you know, during, I saw that firsthand. Because I saw, you know, I was not normally—in order to choose a president, when my father wanted to run in ’68, he challenged the president of his own party, just like I did.

But he was there; there were primaries, and he was allowed to challenge him, and it forced Johnson to step down. I think if I’d been able to challenge, under the same situation, um, President Biden, he would have been forced to step down much earlier because he would have been forced to debate me. People would have seen his impediments much earlier, and we could have had real democracy.

You could have had other people coming to the race—not just me—but, you know, Gavin Newsom and Amy Klobuchar and Vice President Harris and other people would have run. But instead, they just called off the primaries; they literally cancelled the primaries, and they gave, um, you know, they gave the election to President Biden without ever coming out of the White House.

Um, they did not want them to debate, clearly, because they did not want to see some of, you know, the public to see some of these deficiencies. So you had a kind of apparatus that was running a candidate who was unqualified for the job, and everybody now recognizes that, but they wanted him in there anyway because they needed a figurehead who could win the election.

And who's... they? Well, you talked about the military-industrial complex. Well, yeah, but I, you know, I’m not even going to go into, you know, sort of the deep state analysis. But I would just say I don’t know who made the decision. I, you know, clearly there were people around him, you know, and it could be Anthony Blinken and, you know, Sullivan and even, you know, who knows who else, but whoever was calling the shots.

And, you know, there was a—it was a really, really unbelievable moment at the, uh, during the Democratic National Convention when Chris Cuomo points up into the bleachers of the arena, you know, where the convention was taking place, and there were these high seats, the boxes, the owner’s boxes up in the upper rim of the, and he said, "Those are the boxes that cost a million, a million and a half to be in that box right now," and those are the big donors of the Democratic Party—the corporate donors, the Black Rocks, these kind of groups that are up there—the military industrial, the big pharma.

He said, "We don't even know who they are, but they're the ones that are making all the decisions here on the floor." And, you know, those are the people that ultimately anointed Kamala Harris. You know, who I don’t think is... I don’t want to be mean-spirited, and I’ve been very disciplined about not name-calling.

To me, it’s a disqualifier to be president of the United States if you don’t believe in freedom of speech, and, uh, Vice President Harris has repeatedly said that the First Amendment is a privilege, not a right, um, that the government has a duty to censor what she calls misinformation—that that’s not protected by the First. That’s a very dangerous word, misinformation.

It’s first of all, the First Amendment protects all speech. It protects lies; it protects, you know, of, not it was passed not to protect convenient speech, but to protect the speech that nobody wants to hear. And when the government takes upon itself the right to decide what’s true and what’s not true, then you have a totalitarian system. Because, of course, it’s going to, you know, and we saw this during Co, where the government was really the biggest propagator of misinformation, of factually inaccurate information, um, that it then uses the control of information to manipulate the public.

And, by the way, protecting lies is important because a lot of the lot of the assumptions that we have about life and policy and politics and war and peace and the economy, um, started out that that now we believe as consensual truth started out as hypotheses or suppositions that people considered dishonest or lying or wrong or erroneous or misinformation back then.

The whole process of democracy is a dialectic in which, you know, new ideas that are unpopular that appear manipulated to dishonest challenge existing realities, and in that dialectic, you know, in the furnace of debate and the, um, and the of dialogue, of conversation, these ideas are annealed, and in a true democracy, functioning democracy, they rise in the marketplace of ideas and become policies if they survive that process.

Going online without ExpressVPN is like forgetting to mute yourself on a Zoom meeting. Do you really want everyone to hear your unguarded opinions? Imagine scrolling through your favorite websites blissfully unaware that your every click is being monitored. It's not just big tech; your internet service provider sees it all, and in the US, they can legally sell that information to advertisers. It’s like having someone read your diary and then auction it off to the highest bidder.

ExpressVPN reroutes 100% of your traffic through secure encrypted servers. This means your ISP can't see your browsing history. It’s like sending your data through an impenetrable tunnel. By hiding your IP address, ExpressVPN makes it extremely difficult for third parties to track your online activity. That’s why I use ExpressVPN every time I'm researching sensitive topics or accessing public Wi-Fi.

In today’s world where information is currency, protecting your digital footprint isn’t just smart; it’s essential. It's also incredibly user-friendly. Just open the app and click one button to get protected, and ExpressVPN works on all my devices—phones, laptops, tablets, and more. You can stay private whether you're at home or on the go.

But don't just take my word for it: ExpressVPN is rated number one by top tech reviewers like CNET and The Verge. Protect your online privacy today by visiting expressvpn.com/jordan. That’s expressvpn.com/jordan, and you can get an extra three months free. expressvpn.com/jordan.

Nobody should be an arbiter at the beginning, at the outset, as to what you can talk about and what you can't. And the impulse of the Democratic Party to censor debate is part of a larger disease, which is, which is has to do with centralized control rather than democracy and the mistrust of the people, the mistrust of the demos, which is the people, which is what, you know, democracy is, is, uh, named after.

Oh, they believe that the government needs to control what people hear so that they don’t become infected with dangerous ideas. And, you know, it was dangerous ideas that launched the American Revolution—an idea that people could actually govern themselves—which was considered a lie back then. Oh, you need, and you know, and they won the Revolution.

And, um, then, you know, our nation has been about trusting people and avoiding centralized mechanics of control, and now the Democratic Party is all about the centralization of control. It’s about surveillance; it’s about controlling the flow of information; it’s about top-down policies that, um, that, you know, are dictated by an oligarchy, and it’s the opposite of democracy.

And, you know, so I saw that firsthand, and I saw it in the Democratic Party alone. This is an irony from the beginning. Our polls were showing and all the national polls were showing—almost all of them—and I was hurting President Trump, and about 57% to 60% of the people who said they were going to vote for me said that if I left the race, they would switch their votes to Trump.

So me being in the race was actually helping the Democrats. It was Democrats who were trying to destroy my campaign, who were trying to, you know, sue me despite that. Yeah. And, and it’s very strange, right? Because I was helping them.

The Republican Party made no effort to keep me off the ballot. They didn't make efforts to discredit me. I mean, President Trump said, you know, obligatory bad things about me—that I was a left-wing radical and all this stuff—but they weren't mean-spirited things, and there wasn't, you know, there was no effort to keep me from speaking. The Democrats kept me from speaking, and their allied media outlets.

When, uh, when Rosso ran in 1992, Jordan, he had—he was 10 months in the race and he had 34 interviews on the mainstream media, ABC, NBC, CNN, etc. Right? In the 18 months that I spent the race, I had two live interviews on.

And how long were they? What, how long were the interviews?

Well, they weren't long. I mean, the longest one was with Aon Barnett, which was, I think, 22 minutes, maybe 27 minutes. So you got live interviews, so they can’t, you know, they can’t censor it if you do a taped interview; they cut out whatever they don’t want the public to hear.

Oh, I had two live interviews during 18 months compared to 34 interviews in 10 months that he had. Oh, they, you know, I wasn’t allowed to write letters to the editor to The Washington Post, The New York Times, any of the mainstream, uh, you know, the sort of the Democratic, um, periodicals or publish editorials. None of them. I could not speak to that constituency, and, you know, that’s really why, you know, I had to withdraw ultimately.

And then they wouldn’t let me on the debate stage.

Yeah, right? And that was a collusion too, because if you had the old debating commission that was run by originally for the first 15 years—you know, my uncle had the first televised debate in 1960—and for 20 years after that, it was run by the League of Women Voters, which was independent, unbiased, and they had their own rules for letting people in. They would have let me in under their rules.

And for the next, you know, after 1980, it was run by the, um, the Commission on Presidential Debates, which was also unbiased. But now, President Biden and President Trump said, “We’re not going to use the commission on debates; now we’re going to make a separate deal with CNN.” And we now know what happened in that; the New York Times reported in their conversations where President Biden said, “We are not going to be on the stage with Robert Kennedy, so we want you to keep him off.

And if he has rules to let him on, then we’re not,” and for CNN, you know, it’s tens of millions of dollars for that debate, and then they’re going to get hundreds of millions. Well, you know, he kind of... he went back and forth on it, so the Republicans were not entirely good on that, but he did say publicly, “I think he should be on the debate.”

Yeah, yeah, I remember that.

And then, um, then the same thing happened with ABC, and they adopted rules that, that actually I was able to reach their metrics, their thresholds, but they still kept me off the debating stage, and that's illegal, clearly; it’s illegal under FEC rules. You’re not allowed to deliberately exclude another candidate from the debate without neutral rules.

And they’re not allowed to develop rules specifically to keep somebody off the debate. Otherwise, the debate itself becomes an illegal campaign contribution.

And, of course, that’s why, you know, Trump’s lawyer, you know, went to jail for that, right? So they, what they were doing was criminal. The FEC is an anemic organization that is half of the commission is Republican, half are Democrats, so independents—none of them care about an independent, and they, you know, so they just didn’t act on it.

I don’t know, three months ago, President Biden and Kamala Harris, uh, gave this statement about Vladimir Putin where they said they were ridiculing him because he had won the Russian election; I think he got 88% of the vote, and they said, “Well, you know, that’s because he didn’t let anybody else run against him, and because he controlled the media, so you know, that's not really democracy.”

Well, that was the same system they put in place over here. So the whole thing was, uh, was an irony. But, you know, that is also the fact the Democratic Party abandoned democracy was another part of this inversion that has taken place, and that I, you know, my wife saw that process firsthand, and I think, you know, it, um, it changed some of her worldview and made her, she wasn’t happy about me endorsing President Trump at all, um, and did not want me to do it, but it became, I think, you know, tolerable for her where she, uh, um, and that was important for me to have her on board.

Right, so can I ask you a little bit about what I’ve seen as a major transformation on the Trump side and it’s allayed some of my concerns hypothetically about the manner in which he might conduct an administration? Like, I think he made a major error in the debate with Harris not stressing continually the makeup of the team that he’s gathered around him at the moment.

I was with some people earlier today about the fact that if I was an American, which I’m not, I would vote for Trump merely because Musk said he would head a commission on investigation into inefficiencies in government. And to me, that’s a stunning opportunity because Musk has shown time and time again that he can do exactly that sort of thing.

He has Musk; he has you; he has Tulsi Gabbard; he has JD Vance; he has Vivek Ramaswamy. I mean, first of all, these are unlikely Republicans to say the least, and they’re also remarkable people. And so it seems to me that along with the inversion of the Democrats that you described and laid out in multiple dimensions, there’s also been a transformation not only of the Republicans in the way you said, but also in the Trump in the team that’s gathered around Trump himself.

And so, well, I'm curious what you think about Trump per se. You've met with him many times now, and you guys have obviously called together something approximating a functional agreement. He obviously listened to you on the health front, but then there’s these other people that are surrounding him at the moment too that seem to be—well, they remind me in some ways; they remind me in some ways of you. They’re not the typical political players; they’re much more entrepreneurial; they’re not—they’re certainly not classic Republicans.

And so what do you—how are things going with you and Trump? You said a bunch of things about the Democrats that were critical, but you haven't yet elucidated your opinions with regards to Trump and the team that’s around him now, so I’m curious about your sentiments in that regard.

Yeah, I mean, I had, you know, multiple discussions. I got a call from about two hours after, uh, President Trump’s shooting in Butler; I got a call from a guy called Cali Means, who is, um, really a genius who’s been on the forefront of reforming our food system and, you know, dealing with the chronic disease epidemic.

He and his sister, Casey Means, who did this wonderful interview with Tucker that, you know, introduced a lot of people to them, he called me and he said to me, you know, “Are you interested in talking to, uh, the Trump team about, you know, some kind of a partnership about perhaps unifying your parties?”

And I said no immediately. And then I actually called my family, um, members and talked to, you know, a number of, like, you know, my immediate family members. And, um, they said, “You should talk to them.” My wife said, “You know, you should talk to him,” but she was not thinking about unifying the party; she was just thinking about, and he had just been shot, and that, um, you know, my—because I came from a background where my, you know, my uncle, my father were killed by assassins, that it would be a compassionate thing to talk to him.

But my kids were, you know, you should talk to him about, you know, about hearing him out on what he has in mind. And, um, so I ended up, I then sent Cali Means a text saying, you know, “I’m interested.” And then a few minutes later, I got a text from a three-way text from Tucker Carlson with an unknown number that was President Trump's cell phone, and he said, you know, "Will you guys talk?"

And then I said, “Yes,” and a few minutes later, I got a call from President Trump, and we talked probably for 30 or 35 minutes, and we talked about, um, a whole lot of issues, different issues. And you know, about his shooting and about the issues that I was interested in, and he expressed a kind of a—they had come to an alignment with me on some of those issues, and we agreed to meet the next day.

And we ended up meeting in Milwaukee, and we had, I think, probably about two and a half hours together, and, um, at that point, we talked about the food system. We talked about the chronic disease epidemic; we talked about the, uh, about the cons and the addiction to war, and I was impressed by his just, uh, I would say visceral revulsion about the Neocons and about their view of an Imperium abroad and a national security state at home, which go hand in hand because imperialism abroad is inconsistent with democracy at home and, um, with also his opposition to censorship, which he was—again, it was visceral with him, and I think part of that is because he’s seen it in action.

You know, he’s been the target of censorship the same as I have, and, um, so then we agreed that maybe there was a, uh, there was grounds to meet on. They wanted me to do something at the, at the convention—the Republican convention—and I was not ready to do anything, and then after that, I actually contacted the Harris campaign to see if she would have a conversation with me, and she just said outright, “No.”

And then, uh, what do you think that was? I mean, you’d think a conversation...

I don’t know. To me, it’s unimaginable that, you know, you wouldn’t have a conversation, that kind of conversation, particularly because, you know, my, um, uh, because the race can be so close, it’s going to be within two or three points, and I had a following enough that was large enough to swing it one way or the other, and at least theoretically.

Um, so, you know, I would—was it guilt by association? Is it something like that? I mean, I’ve had a lot of experience; Democrats are so radioactive in the Democratic Party. And also, they, you know, they believe their own publicity, so they’re all reading The New York Times and watching CNN, and if you’re living in that, uh, information ecosystem, first of all, you’ll never see me talk; explain my own issues.

What you’ll hear is that, you know, I’m antifa and that I’m anti-science and that I’m a crazy person and that I’m a lunatic, and, you know, all the other things that are just kind of the standard defamations and perjuries about me on the Democratic-controlled media or aligned media. So, and they’re probably believing parts of that.

And, you know, um, so who knows? I can’t look into her mind and explain what they did, you know, why they did. I could speculate a lot, but, you know, what’s the point?

And then I continued having conversations with the Trump campaign and, uh, with President Trump himself in a number of personal conversations. Imagine waking up one day your entire world turned upside down. That’s the reality for countless families in Israel right now. Community shattered, lives uprooted, and a constant threat looming overhead. It’s a stark reminder of how quickly peace can crumble in times of chaos.

It’s not just about surviving; it’s about standing firm, showing solidarity, and taking action. That’s where the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews comes in. They’re not just watching from the sidelines; they’re on the ground providing real tangible support. Now, as we approach the one-year mark of October 7th, the Fellowship is launching something truly remarkable.

It’s called the Flags of Fellowship campaign, and it’s a powerful way for us to show that we remember, we care, and we stand united. On October 6th, church yards across America will be transformed into seas of blue and white, each Israeli flag planted represents a life lost, a story cut too short. It’s more than just a visual tribute; it’s a statement to the world that we will never forget.

You can be part of Flags of Fellowship too. There’s a tremendous need for food and basic supplies for evacuating families, trying to survive in communities impacted by the ongoing war. That’s why we’re asking 1,200 of our listeners today to make a gift of $100 to help provide emergency food boxes for a displaced family in Israel. Israel needs our support now more than ever, so here’s what I need you to do right now: go to JordanForTheFellowship.org. That’s one word, JordanForTheFellowship.org.

Remember, JordanForTheFellowship.org. God bless, and thank you.

And I ended up going to Mar-a-Lago with Amarilis, my daughter-in-law, who runs my campaign, and we sat down with, uh, with Don Jr. and with, uh, with President Trump and Susie Wild's campaign manager for several hours and talked through these issues.

And we agreed to do a unity campaign where we would, like they have in Europe, where there are, you know, where there’s coalitions where you don’t, you don’t give up your own independence or your capacity to criticize your allies on things with which you don’t agree with them.

And he was very agreeable to that, and on the things that we don’t agree on, that I would continue to criticize him and he could criticize me without penalty to our, to our alliance. And that, um, the issues that we did agree on, he agreed to make them priorities and to, um, involve me in some way in, uh, in helping to choose the new government and helping to give emphasis to the policies that I was concerned about.

And the three policies were children’s health and the chronic disease epidemic, which involves the food system and the, you know, getting the corruption out of the public health agencies, out of USDA. Um, second, handling the censorship and, uh, and surveillance. And number three, ending the, uh, the warfare, say, ending the Ukraine war immediately.

And, um, all of those are issues that he—those are big issues he had come to on his own, and I think he appreciated my insights on some of those issues and my, uh, passion for some of those issues and my knowledge about some of those issues; he welcomed my involvement.

I mean, one of the things you asked me about what I sort of had come to discover about President Trump, and he said to me a number of things that were very illuminating. One is that he and Donald Jr. and JD Vance were absolutely, um, had extraordinary antipathy toward what the neocons have done to our country.

I was surprised about that, how knowledgeable they were and how passionate. And JD Vance is a soldier, and so his understanding of the Neocons comes out of his own, you know, service abroad and his own, um, military service. And then Donald Trump Jr., I don’t know exactly how he came to his, uh, antagonism toward them, but it is, uh, it was—it's very heartfelt.

That gave me a lot of confidence as well, that he’s surrounded by people who are close to him that are in his family and that, you know, are going to be involved in his administration who agreed with me.

And we talked at that time about, um, in fact, it was an issue that I brought up about bringing Tulsi onto the team, and, um, they were very, very welcoming of that idea. And that, of course, another one who had tremendous trouble with the Democrats—not only—and she was the Deputy Director of the Democratic National Committee, you know, four years ago.

Oh, she was a core, you know, Democrat, and a presidential candidate, a Democratic Congresswoman—yeah, had a formidable figure and very, very formidable and, uh, and somebody that I like personally a lot and have had a long and very, very friendly relationship with. And then, um, but he also said something to me; he said last time that I was in, you know, in 2016, he said, “I was, uh, we got—and, and he, he said we didn’t really expect that that was going to happen, and obviously I was not prepared for it.”

And he said, “You know, we launched the transition committee in January, and I was immediately surrounded by, you know, business people and lobbyists and saying you pick this guy, pick that guy, pick that guy.” And he said, “And I did it; I did what they said.” He said, “I later came to regret it, and a lot of those people were bad people.”

You know how he talks about that. He said they were bad people, and, um, and he said, “I don’t want to do that this time; I want to do something completely different.”

And he said, “We’re going to launch a transition committee starting this week.” So normally, the transition committee is paid for by the G by the General Accounting Office, and you don’t launch until after the election. But with him, he got private donors to, uh, to pay for the transition committee, and he’s starting it four or five months early.

Yeah, so that they can actually put a government in place. And then another thing he said is, “You know, one of the big complaints against President Trump has been that he’s sort of a captive of the Heritage Foundation and Project 2025.” And he said to me, uh, he said, “You know, Project 2025, they keep trying to stick that to me. I’ve never read it; I never heard it; I heard of it until people started telling me that I was behind it.”

And he said, “That was written by a right-wing think tank,” that’s what he said to me. And he said, “There are left wing, and there are right wing,” and that was written by a right-wing think tank.

And so in that way, you know, he kind of, you know, disavowed this kind of ideological, um, pigeonhole that they’re trying to put him in. And I think his administration is going to be really interesting because, uh, like you said, he’s surrounded by people who are entrepreneurial, who really are common sense people who want to do the right thing for our country.

And, you know, I also came to understand President Trump in a different light, and it’s easy for me to understand because I’ve been vilified and demonized by the press, and the view of me, you know, across the kind of the liberal landscape is that, you know, I’m this real insane crazy person.

And, um, and you know, but a lot of people I, I, you know, take that for gospel as reality. And, you know, I think a lot of the things that have been said about President Trump are the same thing. There are things that are propaganda tropes; there are very simplistic characterizations of him that miss some of the richness of his character and of his, uh, of personality.

Yeah, well that seems to be especially the case now that he has this quite remarkable team around him. So let me steelman the Democrats for a second and tell me what you think of this. I’ve had a number of Democrat contacts and they’ve been making a case to me that things have genuinely shifted since Harris took the reins.

And they point to things such as relative, um, relatively less emphasis being placed, for example, at the DNC on the climate crisis and carbon dioxide, a relative, um, shelving or siloing of the more radical leftist movement within the Democrats, which in my experience they’ve—what—you’ve, what—declined to even admit that that exists, which has been a kind of blindness that to me is nothing short of miraculous.

Is it possible that there is a shift towards the center in the Democratic Party and have we seen that since Harris took the reins? And do you have any hope in that regard, or was your experience, your personal experience with their machinations and the problems that you detailed out, um, so comprehensive that you think that what was—that it is too little too late or not real at all? I guess.

Well, it’s hard to look into somebody else's head, so, and so I make a practice of not doing it. But what I would say, um, is a couple of things—one is that both Tim Walz and Kamala Harris—I made this point before.

And then Hillary yesterday, who’s kind of the bellwether for, you know, who the Democratic Party is, all have been very, very vocal about, um, about censorship, about their enthusiasm for government censorship, and about how they’re going to crack down on the social media. Nobody has spoken out about the censorship now taking place in Europe or in Brazil.

Where do you see that as characteristic of the new bill, for example?

Yeah, the bill that they have in here in California, but the, you know, the ban on Twitter in Brazil, the arrest of Pablo Derro in, um, in France—which is, you know, an extraordinary event that the head of telegram would be pulled off his plane when he sued for refueling and put in jail and there’s no reason to do that because Europe is openly censoring content already.

And, and by the way, they do have, you know, Pierre Derro is a resident of Abu Dhabi, and France has an extradition treaty with Abu Dhabi, so they could arrest him anytime they wanted. And, uh, it was—it seemed to be like a deliberate sign to the world about if you mess with the machine, you are going to be chewed up and spit out.

And, uh, and also you know I think having to do with the Ukraine war because Telegram is widely used in Ukraine and also Russia, and there are Li, you know, there are l serbs or groups in Ukraine that are pro-ukrainian and in Russia that are any, uh, Ukraine war and or, you know, or pro-russian in that war.

And I think that that it was probably a US instigated. France has as robust an attachment to freedom of speech as we have in our country. They, in 1789 during the French Revolution, they passed all of these bills that are still on the books, that give a, that make freedom of speech sacred in, uh, France.

And then in the 1880s, they passed another slew of bills that reinforced and fortified the tradition of freedom of speech, so it was as robust. Their attachment of, um, of freedom of expression as it is in this country and yet they abandon it, you know, overnight.

And if America really was the exemplary nation, if we were the promoter of democracy around the world, we would spend less time overthrowing democratically elected governments and more time defending freedom of speech as it, as the Western democracies abandon it. We would be objecting, and we would be saying, you know, this is bad for you, but it’s also bad for Americans.

I mean, you had this, you know, somebody I would consider an insane person, Derry Bratton, the commissioner of the European commission. He quit this week.

Oh, thank God!

Yeah, yeah! Who threatened Musk with criminal and civil prosecution if he allowed, know, without getting permission from the European government the former president of the United States who is the, you know, who’s the nominee of one of our two big political parties.

You can’t listen to him give a live interview. That he has to protect the people of, uh, of Europe against that threat. Oh, and we should be objecting to that. The United States, you know, a real president, President Biden, President Kamala Harris, would be coming out waving flags saying, “You don’t do that! We’re—we don’t care what.”

No matter what! No matter what! No matter what! It’s absolute—you do not do that! You’re not a democracy if you do that, and calling them out on it. There was none of that.

So I think that if you don’t understand that, um, that censorship is incompatible with democracy, that that is a disqualifier for being president of the United States. I worry that I, you know, the, the, the things said, the things that President, that Vice President Harris says she’s for seemed to be politically driven and not heartfelt; for example, you know, her big promise, you know, her promise about taxing tips, which she took from President Trump.

And it was, it was seemed like a last minute, you know, I’m going to do this because it’s politically savvy. Her change on the border, her failure to explain why she didn’t do that, that before, you know, the all of the inconsistencies in that seem, again, not heartfelt, but politically driven.

The big signature, you know, for economic reform that she promised during the convention to give every new business in this country $50,000 gift.

Okay, well, you know, that just is laughable, um, because in New York there are a thousand new businesses starting a day that would be 50 million a day just for New York businesses. And if you gave that money there’d be 2,000 or 3,000 new that would be gained so fast you could hardly imagine it.

And so, you know, she’s talking about hundreds of billions of dollars a year, and where’s that money going to come from?

And then, you know, her other idea, which is just a half-backed, discredited terrible idea about, uh, price controls.

Oh, yeah. You know, and wage controls. Every time that’s been tried, it has been a catastrophe; there’s no place that’s ever done it right.

No, it can’t be done right. And so none of these seem to be well thought out; none of them seem to be part of a coherent and consistent ideology or thought process; none of them seem to be common sense.

And I think, so I don’t—I think that, you know, she did very well in the debate, but anybody can do well in that debate—who can—anybody who can pass the bar exam.

But she did it. You know doing that debate, the bar for her was low, too, to be fair; the bar was low. But, you know, anybody can do—you can anticipate every question that you’re going to be asked.

Or 95% of them, and if you’re surrounded by good people, they can write you up a good 90-second, you know, sound bite. So she had these 90-second sound bites, and she delivered them well.

But I think her understanding of issues seems to be an inch deep and wide, and that, you know, what I would really like to see is her going on long form interviews, like have—I’d like to see that too.

Right? And, and being asked a second question, a third question. Why did you do this? Explain this. How is this consistent? What was your evolution? Just asking the kind of questions that any curious interviewer would ask, and, and make her explain that, and she can't do it.

This is somebody who’s supposed to be President of the United States that’s supposed to be able to go toe-to-toe with our critics around the world to explain her vision, to explain her record, to explain her aspirations for our country. It seems like she does not understand the uses of power.

And we’re seeing that, you know, her support of the Ukraine war and nuclear war, and you know that the risk of nuclear war. I don’t think she has any comprehension. I don’t think she has the ability to talk to foreign leaders.

Um, I haven’t seen any evidence of that, and I think that she is susceptible to manipulation because she doesn’t have firm ideas about her own. I think she’s susceptible to manipulation by the deep state, by the people who want the war, by the neocons that run the White House now and run the foreign policy apparatus of the State Department.

And I think I fear that she’ll be manipulated by them and that those entities actually want a nuclear war, so like they did in my uncle's time and like they’ve done for many, many years. They want a confrontation with Russia that will fragment Russia and give us access to its natural resources and eliminate our big competitor, you know, in the West, and all of their policies have been bad.

That’s a dire, that’s a dire prognostication, that's for sure.

Yeah, so that’s why I’m worried about, you know, her. I’m worried she won’t protect our civil rights, our constitutional rights at home, and she will allow herself and America to be dragged into, um, really catastrophic wars abroad, and at this point in history, I think that’s, you know, we’ve got the emergence of all these surveillance technologies of AI.

This time in history, if we get a president like that, um, it will, uh, for the next four years, it may be too late for our country to ever recover.

Attention, men who still believe the American dream in a world gone mad—the Precision Five from Jeremy’s Razor stands as a beacon of sanity. Five blades of superior engineering offer a shave as unshakable as your faith that the nation’s best days still lie ahead. Experience an exceptionally smooth, remarkably close shave and a testament to the fact that merit still matters.

Stop giving your money to woke corporations that hate you; get Jeremy Razor’s Precision Five instead. Available now at JeremyRazor.com, Walmart.com, and Amazon.

[Music]

So you laid out three policy areas where you felt that you could work with President Trump very effectively: health, speech, and peace. And we spent a fair bit of time concentrating on free speech and on peace and war, and I think we’ll turn to that more—the peace and war issue—on The Daily Wire side in the conclusion of our interview.

But maybe we could close up, if you don’t mind, with some more thoughts on the health crisis, because one of the things you've done that I think is unprecedented, and that’s become perhaps more part of the public discussion since you’ve teamed up with Trump, is to make public health a political issue.

And so you talked about the public health crisis, and maybe you could lay out the dimensions of that crisis. I mean, I know there’s an obesity epidemic; there’s a diabetes epidemic. These are very, very serious problems. And so, but you’ve concentrated on that in a way that just isn’t characteristic of anybody on the political landscape at all, and now it’s become an issue that’s front and center.

And so I’d like to hear more about your thoughts: why you think that’s such a fundamental, um, priority compared to, say, free speech and war and peace: why health, and what you see—lay out the landscape of the problem and also the landscape of potential solutions.

Yeah, so we are now the sickest country in the world. We have the highest chronic disease burden in the world. When my uncle was president, I was a, you know, 10-year-old boy.

Um, about 6% of Americans had chronic illness, and today it’s 60%. When my uncle was president, we spent zero in this country on chronic disease; zero. And, uh, today—and for many chronic diseases, there, first of all, there weren’t even diagnoses, and there weren’t drugs available.

Today we spend $4.3 trillion, so about 95% of our health budget. It’s the biggest, um, and it’s five times our military cost; it’s the biggest item in our budget, and it is the fastest growing.

And, and not only that, so it destroys—it’s destroying our country economically. Absolutely debilitating, and all of our other issues are small towards it. If you just measure its economic impact, it has other impacts.

77% of American children are no longer eligible for the military because of chronic disease.

And is that obesity related with kids?

One of them, you know, obesity, when my uncle was present, was 3.4%. Today it’s 74%. What do you think is driving the obesity epidemic?

Uh, it’s such a transformation, yeah. I mean, it’s being driven by poison food. I, you know, by processed, ultra-processed wheat, sugar, and flour, seed oils, um, soy, canola, sunflower, um, and then, you know, wheat and corn, which are, you know, are, um, which are all heavily subsidized.

So those 90% of farm subsidies, the crop insurance, etc. go to those three categories of soy, corn, and wheat. And those are the feed stocks for all of our processed foods. They turn into sugar; they’re all nutrient barren.

You know, the original crops were nutrient-rich, but the GMO crops are nutrient barren, and they're heavily dependent on pesticides. The point of the way that the reason GMOs are so popular is that they're resistant to pests; the reason they're resistant to pests, right, is because they are, um, they are resistant to pesticides like glyphosate, so you can saturate the whole landscape with glyphosate from airplanes, and the only thing that's green is GMO corn, which is, you know, which is, uh, Roundup-ready corn.

And because of that, it's also very, very heavily laden with pesticides. Wheat, um, glyphosate is also used as a desiccant, which means it dries out wheat, so it’s sprayed on the wheat right at harvest, which means it's going right into the food. And when that began in 1993, that’s when you saw all the appearance of all these gluten allergies and celiac disease and wheat allergies that you don’t have in Europe.

You know, you can eat spaghetti here and you’re going to get eczema and all of these stomach complaints, then you go to Italy, and you eat it and you get thin.

Oh, but here, um, and then the corn is turned into high fructose corn syrup, which is just a formula for making you obese and diabetic. And, uh, Americans, you know, diabetes is one of the diseases; when I was a kid, the average pediatrician saw one case of diabetes in his lifetime, so in a 40- or 50-year career, he may see one case of juvenile diabetes.

And today, one out of every three kids who walks to his office door is diabetic or pre-diabetic, and we spend more on diabetes than our military budget. So that is, you know, and nobody's talking about this, you know, and, and these are the—all of these autoimmune diseases, diabetes, autoimmune diseases, Alzheimer's is a form of diabetes; it’s type three diabetes. It comes from poison food.

Oh, um, so is it—is it the—how much of it do you think is the toxin load per se and how much of it do you think is carbohydrates?

It’s a—it’s the overload of sugars; all of those grains turn into sucrose, and they’re, and they're very low in nutrients. So we’re malnourishing kids. You know, you’re seeing high levels of obesity, and in the same people, people who have high levels of obesity, there’s also high levels of malnutrition.

The most malnourished people in this country are the most overweight, right? Because they’re eating—they’re eating food-like substances.

Yeah, and then that’s a good phrase. And then you’re—they’re covered with chemicals and pesticides; plus, some of those are part of the food processing but some of them are pesticides, etc.

There’s a thousand ingredients in our food that are illegal in Europe and other countries, so we’re just mass poisoning us and nobody has a chronic disease epidemic like we do in our country. That’s why one of the reasons we have the highest death rate from COVID.

We—we had 16% of COVID deaths in this country; we only have 4.2% of the world’s population, and so we did worse than any other country. And the CDC explains that says it’s not our fault; it’s because Americans are so sick.

The CDC said the average American who died from COVID had 3.8 chronic diseases, right?

Right! So it wasn’t COVID that was killing him; it was chronic disease, right? And, uh, and you know, we had the sickest, we have the highest chronic disease burden; we have the highest COVID death rate, and, and then, but it’s not just, it’s those autoimmune diseases like rheumatoid arthritis, juvenile diabetes, lupus, Crohn’s disease, all this IBS, all of these things had suddenly appeared in the mid-80s that, you know, I never knew anybody with any of those diseases when I was a kid.

Yeah, right.

The neurological diseases, ADD, ADHD, speech language, Tourette syndrome, narcolepsy, sleep disorders, Tourette syndrome, ASD, autism. Autism, in my generation, the 70-year-old men is about one in between one and 1500 and one in 10,000. That’s what it is today. My children's generation, one in every 34 kids, according to CDC, one and every 22 in California.

So, you know, and it is—it is devastating our our generation, our economy; it’s going to cost autism alone. So there’s a reason, a recent paper by Mark Blelo that shows it’ll cost a trillion dollars a year by 2030.

And then, so then the allergic disease, again, which I never saw as a kid—I had 11 siblings, 71st cousins. I never knew anybody with a peanut allergy—why do five of my seven kids have allergies?

You know, it’s so you’re up against some big, some major forces in fighting that particular battle. I mean, first of all, you have to sway public opinion in that direction, and then there’s going to be a massive force arrayed against any possible interventions.

That’s for sure.

So, what—tell me what you think you could do and also tell me why you don’t think you would be stopped.

Well, I think they’re going to try to stop us, but I’ve been thinking about this for 40 years, so I know how to do it. And, uh, and you know, I’ve worked with Mark Hyman and CalMeans and Casey Means and a lot of other people to figure out how to do it without having to go to Congress, to do it all with executive orders and policy changes, and you know, I’ll give you one example.

I mean, you can get fluoride out of the water by executive order out of the water systems all over the country, and that is, you know, that’s a big